Target food proves evolution wrong

Several months ago I started debating with some fellow ATS members about things that prove evolution to be wrong. There are many, but perhaps the most
shocking of all is Target Food.

Now I know what you must be thinking, at first glance it sounds like food that you buy at a target store, but that’s not it, it's a little more
complicated. From a very simple observation, it's apparent that each species is suppose to have something to eat. It's not difficult to comprehend
that without food, a species will die, whatever that food might be. It's apparent that there must be some sort of balance so that all species work
together to support this system. If mass species are removed or added to a system that didn't belong there, you would see this balance go crazy, and
there would be mass extinctions.

Earth is currently in it's 6th largest mass extinction right now, and this is exactly why. Things are out of balance. Now according to evolutionists,
this is perfectly normal and its all included in the large evolution bundle of theories and hypothesis. All that they have to say about it is that
when there is an extinction or loss, a species will venture over to someone elses menu and eat off their plate and that's perfectly normal. In
addition, when a new species does surface, it will just eat the same food that it used to. Which makes no sense as the food I eat looks nothing like
say an anteater eats.

So here is a break down for the understanding of target food.

A target food would be a food source that was intended for that species. It will most likely be a common food source and will yield high results for
that specific species. As though the food was made for them. Now this by no means says that each species only ever is to eat one thing, just that it
should have nutritious, available food. A target food will be natural and not processed. Steps taken to acquire food will not be extreme. If you have
to go through a plethora of steps to acquire this food, its not a target food.

When a species loses its target food either from extinction or another species eating it as well, if it's intelligent enough it might try to venture
over to another menu to avoid starving. It could survive, but that food will not be as good for it as the intended food and will probably take more
work to acquire.

When a species has a very large menu, they could be scavengers, as they will eat just about anything. Humans are a prime example of this as we eat
just about everything put in front of us, however, that doesn't mean any of it's our target food. Something else that helps identify this is the
steps taken to adapt. A good example is Cows Milk. Cows Milk is another animals milk, but we process it by homogenizing it, fortifying it,
pasteurizing it. With this redundant adaptation, its obvious that cows milk was not meant for us to drink, and no one is ever going to convince me
otherwise. However the need to drink it is there, and this stems from a reason other than extinction. You see we never had a good calcium source.
There are other things we can eat to substitute calcium like processed cheese is the best but its not natural, so it can't be a target food. Other
things are either not found in most areas or require a lot of work or are not good sources. We can rule out cows Milk as a replacement to something
else as we never knew of anything else we could eat that had sufficient calcium. It's as though we have always been missing a required supply for
calcium, and this is for a reason that I will explain. BTW our need for calcium rises as we get older.

Transpermia would be a term used to explain the possibility of life hitching a ride on rocks that makes it to earth from other planets, and before you
laugh, its already happened. Intervention is more the idea of aliens abducting us and some of the other species from afar and bringing them to earth,
and before you laugh, there is reason to believe this has already happened as well. The bible makes very clear reference to earth not being our home,
and that we were given many things to help us survive here. Is it possible that those that placed us all here didn't take into account that mass
extinctions will occur from this? We are also told that none of what was brought here was from our original home, in other words our target food is
missing.

Now things are starting to make sense. Here is where the conflict lies with evolution, the ultimate goal of evolution is to create new species. Sure
it takes forever and its so slow that we supposedly can't prove it, but that’s what they are saying. If you were just to take you basic religion
and subtract the faith part, whats left is creation, and diversity, and evolution supposedly covers that. Now evolutionists will never own up to the
fact that evolution creates because they claim there is not purpose or intent behind it, I question this as well. Anyhow, if the millions of species
on this planet supposedly evolved from one starting living organism, I think everyone will agree there appears to be some type of motivation here to
make new life. And that’s regardless if you believe in god, evolution or whatever.

Now if you believe in god, its not hard to see that there is obviously a love for making new life, and the plethora of life here on earth definitely
fits that bill. So lets all agree at least that there is motivation of some sort to make new life. Now its a lot of life, I mean there are over 5
million species on this planet, so this motivation must be pretty important. If evolution believes that species don't have a target food then that
importance is out the window. They actually believe that its perfectly normal for a species to have evolved over 3 billion years, to just find out
that there is nothing to eat so they have to die. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but something doesn't sound right here.

All life can't exist without balance, its when that balance collapses that we have extinctions. It's obvious from the extinction stats that we are
losing species way faster then we are finding new ones so this is actually pretty scary. Of course life is suppose to die eventually but mass
extinctions are on a different scale. I guess according to evolution most things are going to have to die out as a species and that’s normal. I
think its a contradiction, why would evolution go to such lengths to create new life just to have them go extinct?

Sorry, you lost me at needing cow's milk as a calcium source. It's actually quite a poor one due to high protein content leaching even more
calcium out of our bodies than it provides (hence high milk producing/consuming countries having higher rates of osteoporosis).

Plant sources are much better at providing useful calcium, and our prior/natural & varied diets likely would have handled this wonderfully.

This also overlooks the fact that most of humanity is lactose intolerant...

Will come back to try to give the rest a fair shake later, but...hrm. Can't do it now.

Here is 6 references (There was hundreds more but I think this is enough..)

I guess cow's milk is actually a terrible example, and maybe next time you go on a pro-creationism rant you will do some research instead of just
spewing INCORRECT information and making yourself look less informed then a child who believes in Santa...

Nothing is self-sufficient, our earth relies on a balance in which every being has a role to play and only exists through the existence of another
being, its a subtle fragile harmony that is easily shattered. The earth counts time in billions of years, species have been rising and falling for
billions of years before the age of man. Man has been around for 200 thousand years yet, religion only accounts for the past 4000 years. People need
to wake up and realize the biggest lie ever told:...that we are more important then any other lifeforms on earth and that we are somehow godlike, when
in reality we are the least "godlike" creatures on earth.

Chances are OP is a devout christian and I just want him to know that I have read the bible and I wouldn't wanna follow that god even if he was real,
"god" does more evil things throughout the bible then "satan"...go figure...

This doesn't prove evolution wrong. At best it is support for intelligent design, but your failure is assuming that only one can exist. It is possible
that both can exist, so you are not proving anything wrong, especially evolution. But anyway...

Target food isn't intelligently designed for a species, a species adapts (evolves) to make use of what it has. If it can't, it dies off. Only the
strong survive - Darwin. If it can survive long enough, its body will undergo changes to make the environment more easily tolerated.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Here is where the conflict lies with evolution, the ultimate goal of evolution is to create new species.

Ummm... no. The goal of evolution is survival. New species can be a result of that.

There's lots more to talk about, but I feel like it's kind of a waste of time to argue a rant that is based on emotion instead of fact.

Evolution doesn't have a goal or an intent, it is a process and not a personality.

The evolution of species is also affected by the environment, natural disasters and major catastrophic changes (also historically meteorite impacts,
the spread of human hunters and their livestock and diseases) that affect entire ecosystems.

Species can become very specialized to one form of food or prey when that is advantageous, but when it suddenly disappears then a very specialized
species won't have time to adapt, and it will become extinct.
This happened to the big sabre-toothed cats when the mega-fauna became extinct.
It became a victim of its own specialized adaptations.
But such abrupt extinctions imply abrupt environmental changes.
If the change had been gradual then the species would have gradually adapted.

The rate of adaption also depends on how quickly a species can breed and multiply, since the more it multiplies the more it can diversify and produce
a variation that can further adapt.
Most species breed at a rate where they do not exhaust their food source (which also causes extinction), so that too must gradually adapt according to
the environment.
However rats and cockroaches breed very fast in human environments, so they quickly increase those individuals who are immune to poisons and
pesticides.

So evolution actually explains it very well.

The question of motivation is really one for the creationists: why would a creator create a species just to make it go extinct?

Sorry, you lost me at needing cow's milk as a calcium source. It's actually quite a poor one due to high protein content leaching even more calcium
out of our bodies than it provides (hence high milk producing/consuming countries having higher rates of osteoporosis).

Plant sources are much better at providing useful calcium, and our prior/natural & varied diets likely would have handled this wonderfully.

This also overlooks the fact that most of humanity is lactose intolerant...

Will come back to try to give the rest a fair shake later, but...hrm. Can't do it now

Lactose is just a by product of cows milk. I have
never heard nor does it make sense that cows milk or the abundance of such would cause OP. Never heard about plants being good either. What I do know
is that looking at a chart which you can get from a google search, we don't have the needed calcium in an easy to obtain source.

This doesn't prove evolution wrong. At best it is support for intelligent design, but your failure is assuming that one can exist. It is possible
that both can exist, so you are not proving anything wrong, especially evolution. But anyway...

Target food isn't intelligently designed for a species, a species adapts (evolves) to make use of what it has. If it can't, it dies off. Only the
strong survive - Darwin. If it can survive long enough, its body will undergo changes to make the environment more easily tolerated.

If that
were true, we woudln't have super mega suppliment stores, as we would have adapted to the food we have and it would be fitting. If we would have
adapted to the food we eat we wouldn't struggle with diets, and diebetes, and IBS, and chrones disease, and need dieticians. There is a plethora of
proof that our food wasn't meant for us. I don't know that target food was intelligently designed but I know its mandatory for balance. And yes only
the strong survive, but when you see desperation acts like that its only because things are out of balance and that is not natural. If we are suppose
to evolve like you say or adapt to the food we have then why did we go from drinking raw cows milk to now having to pasturize, homogenize and fortify
it? It's backwards, and almost everything in our food agenda is like that.

Evolution doesn't result in perfection.
One aspect of an organism that was originally used for something different may become adapted to another advantage.
Evolutionists would point out that there are all kinds of flawed designs in nature.
The human spine, for example, is often mentioned because it still causes humans much pain, and evolutionists say this is because it was once the spine
of a creature that walked on all fours, rather than supporting a top-heavy frame.
So evolution often results in workable but imperfect designs, and atavistic appendages that are no longer needed. So we suffer because one thing was
tweaked by adaption, but not necessarily perfectly in relation to everything else.
Creationists indeed argue that our design is perfect.
To evolutionists what is advantageous in one generation can be hazardous to the next, if the environment abruptly changes, or if people or animals are
suddenly displaced into another environment.
Having white skin in the tropics, for example, is not as advantageous as having darker skin, because of greater sun sensitivity.
Being able to store fat quickly is good in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle where food is seasonal, but in a modern situation where calories are constantly
available it can be deadly.

Our diet is a matter of much debate, but it evolved as that of hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, and the introduction of sedentary lifestyles
and modern processed foods is not what we were adapted to.

So once again evolution explains why we have these problems.
But these are new foods in human evolution, only a century or so old in most cultures.
Some people are better adapted to milk and grains than others, and these come from lines originating in places that had these foods for longer, so
some regional adaption to food has already occurred.
People who were recently hunter-gatherers suffer especially hard from obesity and diabetes with modern junk-food diets, because their bodies were
adapted to store food for famines, and their diet has now changed to an over-abundance of sugar and empty calories within a generation or two.

I'm just a bit confused by the notion of "target food", because in evolution things develop in symbiosis, and it's not a deliberate race to any
target.

If one looks at milk, one can say it is an imperfect food for humans, but domesticating cattle provided many benefits.

If one looks at Africa, herders had a distinct advantage over hunter-gatherers.
Keeping cattle, goats and sheep allowed large groups of herders to suddenly expand into areas that were rather arid, and they quickly overcame the
hunter-gatherers.

The irony is that many cattle-raising Africans are lactose-intolerant, which means their use of milk and cattle is not that ancient.
In SA they overcome this by allowing the milk to sour and ferment to a degree.

Cattle also provided dung for housing and fuel, and for agriculturists, fertilization.
Cow urine was used medicinally wherever their were herding people.
They also provided meat and blood (many tribes mix cow blood with milk).

To the Cape Khoi their oxen were like horses, and they rode them, and drove them into battle.
They could control entire herds like regiments with whistles.
Clearly they opened up forests and bushland for human occupation and game, and when Europeans found the "African savannah", that was a carefully
managed landscape.
Only now are some researchers realizing that banning herders from game reserves was a big mistake, because they created that landscape.

The herders became taller and stronger than the hunter-gathers, and although the San (Bushmen hunter-gatherers) are famed for reaching astounding
longevity, the herding people of the Hamitic variety (the Masai, for example) are famed for their stature.

Living with livestock is a mixed blessing.
Humans got many diseases from their cattle, especially in Europe where peasants and their animals shared houses in winter.
But Europeans also developed some resistance to those diseases, like smallpox.
When they colonized other countries the natives died very quickly from such diseases, because they had developed no immunity whatsoever.

But saying evolution makes a target food or plant, and them some species develops to eat it is unsound.
That's like saying evolution makes a virus and waits for some species to get it.
Humans were food once, and we had to adapt from a variety of ape pretty fast, but that change in environment made us come down from the trees, and
although we barely made it at times, it was our brains that grew larger.

I think the OP is flawed in it's reasoning and conclusion.
What you should do is research your facts when you post. I think that instead of a quick Google search, you might want to look up some papers on early
human eating habits.

You should also look up the habits of people in countries that don't regularly drink cow's milk.
A good source of calcium is bone marrow, which most people in more industrialized countries no longer eat.

Another good idea would be to consider that the longevity of life of before civilisation was shorter.

Nondairy Foods with Calcium Getting enough calcium can be a especially hard if your kids are allergic to milk. These nondairy foods can be good
choices for kids with milk allergies who need calcium

I just don't understand why it is so important for creationist to try to disprove evolution. If you believe in creationism, or intelligent design,
shouldn't Your Own faith be enough for you. It reminds me of when the Catholic church was putting scientists in jail for saying the earth was round,
or that the earth wasn't the center of the universe (or multiverse).

If you are going to try and disprove evolution because of your own lack of conviction in your ideals, then at least bring the goods.

Also i just realized what you might say, that those food aren't available everywhere.

Here is a good thought for you, if the species developed in a certain area, then those nutritional necessities might be more prevalent in the area
where the species originated.
Another consideration in this thought line would be, using your OP, that the target food that was once used for the specific nutritional requirement
may have gone extinct, therefor forcing the species to move to other less rich sources.

You have to logically think out the variables before making a wild assumption to back your line of thought.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.